Jump to content

Talk:Chupacabra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Sackinator (talk | contribs) at 13:56, 18 April 2023 (Contradiction in lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeChupacabra was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 23, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Possible Title Change

While not really necessary, I thought I might suggest that the title of the article could be changed to “el Chupacabra,” to reflect the full Spanish name. Again not really necessary if you think it doesn’t need it, just an idea. 72.188.17.58 (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The requested "el" portion is just Spanish for the grammatical article "the" and not part of the actual name. In any event, there is already a redirect from El Chupacabra to this article so that anyone entering the Spanish gramatical article "El" before the actual name will also be brought to this Chupacabra Wikipedia page. Mercy11 (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

Is there a reason why this article hasn’t been converted into a better piece that discusses the topic from a sociological perspective? I mean, there are academic publications that link the depiction of the Chupacabras to social anxieties related to colonialism and neoliberalism in Puerto Rico and, later, to immigration and other issues relevant to other Latin American countries as the myth expanded abroad. It would be much closer to an encyclopedic article than the (tiny) current revision that, futilely, compiles ideas for/against its existence as an actual animal. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake, no. Wikipedia has too much edit-protected woke crap already.98.234.13.133 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archives chronology

So, the other day I manually created Archive 4 for this page and transferred numerous stale conversations. However, upon delving through the other archives, it appears there is no rhyme or reason for any semblance of order. All range from the annals of Wikipedia to recent years. I am unfamiliar with the long-term history, but could that be because of bots? If there is a topical order, that is not made clear. Otherwise, I am considering going through and completely overhauling each archive to establish proper chronological order and fill each archive up to ~75 KB per talk page recommendations. TNstingray (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and "filled" each archive to the recommended ~75 KB limit with the oldest material from the subsequent archive. I also moved a handful of misplaced conversations from Archive 1 to Archive 3, as they were dated from 2016-2020. Everything should be more orderly and consistent now, and my efforts meant that Archive 4 was no longer needed and subsequently speedy deleted. TNstingray (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022

Add to Pop Culture: In a 2012 episode of Workaholics called "To Kill A Chupacabraj" Blake finds what he believes to be the deceased corpse of the Rancho Chupacabra in the pool, though it turns out to be the neighbor's dog. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2154746/ 2601:681:4A04:43A0:1450:2977:EDCA:A834 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done A09090091 (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

request edit

El Chupacabra topic miss informs the region its from the Chupacabra is a Puerto Rican creature only we literally made it to scare tourist and the governor to advantage for him to win election by saying he will get a team to hunt it down if he wins 2603:9001:8B00:2049:C0E5:EADA:41CB:17F6 (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

Under “In popular culture”, Change “A 1999 episode of Futurama…” To “A 2011 episode of Futurama…” And edit the episode link to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fry_Am_the_Egg_Man

Thanks! 64.18.152.32 (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The sentence A 1999 episode of Futurama features a monster called "El Chupanibre" correlates to the 1999 episode. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Chupacabras (Legend and Failures)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chupacabras (Legend and Failures) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Chupacabras (Legend and Failures) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should be added...

Several times throughout the year, the Round Rock Express become the Round Rock Chupacabras in celebration of "Copa de la Diversión" which is a season-long event which embraces the culture and value of the local US Hispanic/Latino communities. 47.221.159.19 (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter's Laboratory, season 2, has an episode titled "Got your Goat", in which El Chupacabra is revealed to be "Charlie", one of Dexter's experiments that escaped his lab.98.234.13.133 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

School is the best everybody loves it.

"Jupa cabra" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jupa cabra and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 2 § Jupa cabra until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in lead

The lead currently states that sightings first occurred both in 1995 and in the 1970s. Given that in the body, the same source is used for both claims, 1975 should probably be stated for the first sighting while 1995 should be the year for the name being coined, as the first section states. --2003:E5:1713:525A:FCDF:79F7:298E:4985 (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to start a section bringing up this very point. Either the 1995 statement should be changed or the 1970s should, but as it stands now, there's a contradiction. —The Sackinator (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]